Sincere thanks for basically proving my point you angry, bitter moron...accept the fact that you cannot accept facts...LOL
You don’t even have a leg to stand on as long as you don’t deliver a clear definition of what you actually write about.
You have this childish "
Look. Blacks have the lowest on average IQ. Now prove me wrong !! Go on try. I dare you try !!" way of debating.
If you’re saying that physical features determine “race” which exactly are those features ? Applying circular logic, the answer would be “the features group members share based on their region of origin”. And then again, what are those features ?
The racial designations that we currently use are principally based on three characteristics.
1) Facial structure
2) Skin color
3) Hair texture.
Those are things that are controlled by six genes out of thirty thousand genes in the human genome and those genes have never been shown by any geneticist on the planet, any biologist on the planet, to be connected, or what geneticists call “concordant,” with any other trait known as intelligence
And that's the reason you’ll find African Americans in the NBA but you won’t find many West Africans, who are certainly “blacker” and probably according to you athleticism and blackness somehow run together, you would expect West Africans to dominate the NBA and African teams to dominate international basketball competitions.
They don't
O and
NO -
It's not because everyone is the same.
Yes - There are persistent and real genetic differences that cluster within so-called racial groups (and more so than many have heretofore believed) Yet these differences still fall far short of indicating sub-speciation, which is the normal standard used by biologists to indicate different “races” or breeds of a larger species.
It has never been a case of there not being differences between the way human beings look. The trouble is in the imprecise taxonomy. How do you define a “race” and might there not be other equally valid ways of dividing humans into taxonomical groupings ?
We acknowledge that human beings adapt to their geography to some extent – but not enough to become different *kinds* of human beings.
Now, if you choose to call the differences in groups “races” it stretches the original meaning of the word.
But let’s accept that for a moment. You want races so badly, then guess what ?
I'll give them to you.
But you’re going to need more races (based on genetic variance) than they culled of in the past centuries. And the races won’t be arbitrarily colour-coordinated. There will be several European races, many Asian races, and a large number of African races.
There is no resistance to accept “race” as a biological concept
The point is, there is no scientific proof for it. Full stop. However, the fact that is truly remarkable in all of this is how keen certain people are on proving the biological validity. Or to see it proven. All that effort would be much better invested in research for genetically based disorders.
It’s also understandable when serious scientists (like me) are sick and tired of debunking guys like you over and over again. After all, I'm busy enough with proper research that might become truly beneficial for mankind
Do you even know what a scientific fact is ?
A scientific fact is that rain water freezes at 0°C at a pressure of 1 bar.
There’s no human choice involved. It’s observable and reproducible anywhere by anybody in the exact same way.
But yet you throw around concepts that have no constant repeatability everywhere you try to reproduce the experiment or apply the theoretical claim.
In natural science, only one single significant deviation is enough to render the claim at least disputable, at worst invalid.
The reality is that there is not only one but a multitude of deviations that those you choose to ignore.